Attractive vs. photogenic

[streo]

What does the community think about the phenomenon where some people are attractive (sometimes extremely so) in real life yet very un-photogenic?

I was reading up on this and came across this discussion thread (from 2008):

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=479133

Btw, I should add that someone I know personally is married to a covergirl/supermodel (she represented her country in the 2000 Miss World contest).  I've met her in person quite a few times and she always looks EXTREMELY plain, even when she's glammed up for some of the parties I've seen her at...but when the party pictures of her show up on facebook - BAM - she is this unbelievably beautiful woman!  If I didn't know who she was I would never have taken a second look if I saw her in public.  Yet she has graced many, many, many covers of the European versions of Elle, Vogue, and even GQ.

I should add that this particular person is one of the most excellent people I have ever had the privilege of meeting.  Very down to earth and she has used a lot of her income to help orphanages in underdeveloped countries.

[neferkitti]

Great topic, Streo. One of my nieces is a great example of beautiful in person but not so much in photos. She takes an okay photograph in that she looks "cute", but she is drop dead gorgeous off camera. Of course, she tends to believe the photographs more than me, her Aunt. Makeup also makes a difference on her. She wears too much, and this detracts from her natural beauty, on camera and off.

[tdawg]

I think there are a bunch of different things going on to explain this.

1)The camera picks up things that the eyes miss. When you look at a photograph its easy to notice every single feature. In person you can only focus on a certain area of the head at one time, so we tend to just focus on the face as a whole.

2)Like was mentioned, an image is 2d, and a person exist in 3d. I think this exaggerates the longness and flatness of some faces, when the image is taken of the face head on.

3)Pictures taken too close or with the wrong lens can exaggerate features closer to he camera.

4) People dislike their own photos because they see the reverse of what they see in the mirror, this makes minor and normal asymmetry extremely obvious to the brain which is used to seeing the mirror image. This is probably why you see so many mirror photos on facebook.

5) Perspective distortion: a picture taken at the wrong angle can completely distort facial features.


People who study photography have to adjust for all this

[neferkitti]

Agreed. Good list.

4) People dislike their own photos because they see the reverse of what they see in the mirror, this makes minor and normal asymmetry extremely obvious to the brain which is used to seeing the mirror image.

I don't know if this has been discussed on this forum, but is a mirror reflected photograph the true image or merely the image that we prefer or are accustomed to?

5) Perspective distortion: a picture taken at the wrong angle can completely distort facial features.

I'll have to keep this in mind when I find my photos so, well, surprising.

[trigeminalneuralgia]

kind of unrelated or not,

ive noticed fat women better with make up.  they can get away with putting more on and contouring their face in the shape they like

[trigeminalneuralgia]

do you just mean a squareish chin?

[treevernal]

No, you don't have to have a square chin for what I'm talking about.  This woman is a great example:

[trigeminalneuralgia]

I think I have that.   It does make my jaw seem a tiny bit more proportionate

It seems like as u age it'll start to disappear under excess skin?

[tdawg]

I just did an experiment where I pointed my camera at a mirror(my mirror image) and compared what was on screen to what my eyes caught.

The camera made my face look signifcantly thinner in the mirror, because it didnt pick up on some of the lower back part of my face that is visible to the eyes. This is probably the 3d vs. 2d effect, along with the fact that we rarely see other faces from head on. That is probably why most professionals rarely do a true head on shot that isnt on an angle.

[neferkitti]

I just did an experiment where I pointed my camera at a mirror(my mirror image) and compared what was on screen to what my eyes caught.

The camera made my face look signifcantly thinner in the mirror, because it didnt pick up on some of the lower back part of my face that is visible to the eyes. This is probably the 3d vs. 2d effect, along with the fact that we rarely see other faces from head on. That is probably why most professionals rarely do a true head on shot that isnt on an angle.

Are you saying that the mirror photo image is not better in capturing at true image? If so, dammit! 

[tdawg]

Actually I realized that I effed up lol. I was holding the camera too low. Thats why my photos always looked so weird, they were taken from below eye level.

[Elang]

I always feel that I'm more attractive when I see myself in a mirror then when I see myself in a photograph. It's so annoying when I already feel confident getting ready before a party in front of the mirror, only to find a photo of me on facebook being ugly. The more closer my face is to a camera, the uglier it is. It's not so bad from a distance or when the lighting (shading) is right and makes me look a little attractive.

[Sharptoys]

Unfortunately for many of us, photographs separate one's appearance from one's personality entirely. In a photograph, there is absolutely nothing to distract from facial aesthetics, whereas video and direct interpersonal interaction capture conversational stimulus, vocal inflection, facial expression and body language, which may serve to draw the viewer's attention away from a deformity otherwise apparent at rest.

I distinctly remember when I fully realized this, when one of my friends (a photographer/camera whore) broke out his Nikon, and asked me why I "looked so retarded in pictures". The reality, of course, is that my aesthetic remained unchanged; there was simply nothing to distract from it.